Roadblock to peace

As the war in Afghanistan rumbles on with no viable solution in sight and the military campaign continuing to falter in its quest to crush the Taliban insurgency and bring peace, strategic analysts are increasingly debating the wisdom of engaging the enemy in direct negotiations.

In the Middle East, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is once again rising to boiling point and insurgencies and militant violence keep Iraq and Lebanon in varying states of instability, the possibility of open dialogue with groups and organizations blacklisted as terrorists is being spoken about in hushed tones as a way out of the many impasses in the region.

The focus is slowly shifting from the use of military might in attempting to solve these situations but those who first waged war only to see their battle plans unravel may find themselves bound by their own restrictions as they consider a move towards dialogue.

According to a recent report by the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD), the global 'war on terror' declared by the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks has severely compromised Western powers' abilities to negotiate for peace.

The CHD claims that the lists of terrorists and terror organizations drawn up in the wake of 9/11 created preconditions and restricted the ability to maintain channels of communication with certain groups, such as Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"How organisations are framed is a major but not insurmountable barrier," James Hughes, an expert on conflict resolution at the London School of Economics and Political Science, told Deutsche Welle. "Once an organisation is framed as a 'terrorist' group it makes it politically extremely difficult to engage with the organisation. Some countries have resorted to the use of lists to criminalise and designate certain groups as 'terrorists.' This device proliferated somewhat after 9/11. Lists are highly politicised instruments. Groups, states and individuals may be dropped in and out of them, or be simply not included, depending on the political interests of the list-keepers."

Restrictions rule out dialogue with Hamas

Hamas, which controls Gaza after a schism with Fatah split the ruling Palestinian Authority, is considered a terrorist group by the US and is subject to restrictions from the EU. This means that, in attempting to engage in the Middle East peace process, the US only recognises Fatah. But when dealing with the continuing conflict between the Palestinians and Israel – and the split in the Palestinian Authority which renders it largely impotent as a negotiating partner – the West must also engage with Hamas.

"Open dialogue with Hamas is important in terms of transforming the conflict environment not in terms of 'resolving' it," Orit Gal, a Middle East expert at Chatham House, told Deutsche Welle. "There is a Western over-emphasis on peace agreements in general. Conflict environments are complex systems that can only be gradually transformed and require a multitude of tools to be used and negotiations are but just one of them."

"By engaging Hamas on the release of (Israeli Army hostage) Gilead Shalit and on new border arrangements, economic dynamics in Gaza would gradually transform thereby also changing political clusters and interests."

Gal believes any dialogue with Hamas should be confined to issue areas which hold common interests or underlying visions for those players involved. The broader these could become, the broader the engagement could be.

"Dialogue with Hamas could begin around new border arrangements towards Egypt and then Israel, as all share a common interest in Gaza's economic development," she said. "However, if and when Hamas accepts the general framework of a two-state solution along the 1967 border, engagement could be upgraded and broadened to include the macro-political level and all underlying concerns of the conflict."

Hezbollah a major player despite terror status

In Lebanon, which is currently enjoying one of its regular uneasy periods of stability, Hezbollah is also viewed by the United States as a terror organization despite it playing a significant role in Lebanese politics and operating as a major provider of social services, which operate schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites.

Its often violent opposition to Israel, its alleged involvement in attacks on multinational forces in Iraq and its close ties with both Syria and Iran make Hezbollah an integral component in the complex structure of Middle Eastern instability. Again, should the US and its Western allies hope to negotiate a lasting peace in the region, Hezbollah and its handlers will have to be brought to the negotiating table – a scenario currently prevented by its labelling as a terror group.

Years of war destroy communication channels to Taliban

Dialogue with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan was ruled out for many years but at recent international conferences held to discuss possible solutions to the seemingly endless warfare, increasing numbers of governments have entertained the possibility of reversing this view.

However, nine years of conflict have destroyed any chance of communication with the Taliban and many officials believe its leadership to be focused on victory and not compromise.

But Hughes believes that the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan will eventually leave the West with little choice other to engage with the Taliban, and that the terms on which negotiations would have to take place would be hard to swallow for many.

"The unpopularity of the war in Afghanistan in NATO countries, coupled with the lack of progress on the ground, means that the Taliban could be brought into the state building process through some power-sharing architecture," Hughes said. "This will be framed as 'engaging moderate elements'."

"The problem is not the conduct of talks per se, or even how to spin this fact once it goes public, but rather the substance of the outcome," he added. "Once the Taliban are formally included in the government in Afghanistan, it will require much compromise on the liberal state building agenda promoted by the UN and NATO. Reconciling that outcome with the costs so far expended - human and economic - will be no easy task for Western politicians."

West faces problematic shift in focus

After years of shunning groups like the Taliban, Western governments now find themselves in a position where they could be forced into an embarassing about-face. Shifting their focus from non-engagement to open dialogue would be beset with problems.

"Western governments could save face by engaging these groups as rivals on different issues concerning the ground conditions rather than the macro-political solutions," Gal said. "The strategic objective is to transform conflict environments not 'resolve' them. Each group should be engaged in reference to its own conflict environment and the potential shared interests that could enable shared understandings on changing some ground conditions regarding issues such as economics, security, humanitarian assistance."

Apart from the problems that arise from such a u-turn, the West will be faced with the dilemma on who to engage with and who to ignore. Orit Gal believes that each case should be approached individually as every situation is unique. This will determine who can be approached and how.

"There is no common criteria for engagement," she said. "The engagement should be promoted where common interests lie. Obviously, a group like al Qaeda is different in that sense as it has no grass root anchors and no communities under its responsibility. Therefore no meeting of interests in terms of on the ground needs."

Author: Nick Amies

Editor: Michael Knigge